Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A05-1706-CR-1484 | March 16, 2018 Page 1 of 11

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Scott L. Barnhart

Brooke Smith

Keffer Barnhart LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr. 

Attorney General of Indiana

Henry A. Flores, Jr.

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Gregory Bruce Grider, Jr.,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

March 16, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A05-1706-CR-1484

Appeal from the Delaware Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Marianne L. 

Vorhees, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

18C01-1607-F1-5

Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A05-1706-CR-1484 | March 16, 2018 Page 2 of 11

Statement of the Case

[1] Gregory B. Grider, Jr. (“Grider”) appeals his convictions and sentences for two 

counts of Level 1 felony attempted murder.1 On appeal, he argues that: (1) the 

State presented insufficient evidence to support his convictions; and (2) his 

sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his 

character. Because we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support 

Grider’s convictions and his sentence was not inappropriate, we affirm the trial 

court’s decision.

[2] We affirm.

Issues

1. Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Grider of 

attempted murder.

2. Whether Grider’s sentence was inappropriate.

Facts

[3] On May 27, 2016, the Delaware County Sheriff’s Office received a 911 call 

reporting that a woman, Jennifer Bradford (“Bradford”), was being held 

hostage at gunpoint by her boyfriend, Grider. Dispatch warned the officers that 

Grider had three active felony arrest warrants and had previously threatened to 

“have a shootout with the police.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 185). Several officers 

 

1

IND. CODE §§ 35-42-1-1(1) and 35-41-5-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A05-1706-CR-1484 | March 16, 2018 Page 3 of 11

convened to determine how to approach the situation and then proceeded to the 

reported address to do a welfare check on Bradford. 

[4] At the residence, Corporal David Lee Williams (“Corporal Williams”) and 

Deputy Anthony Johnson (“Deputy Johnson”) approached the front door while 

other officers took up posts around the home. As Corporal Williams and 

Deputy Johnson stepped onto the porch, a motion sensor caused a “chime” to 

“go off.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 228). Deputy Johnson, who knew Grider, looked into a 

window and identified Grider sitting next to a woman on a couch. He told 

Corporal Williams that he could see Grider and then knocked on the door and 

announced, “Sheriff’s Office.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 228). In response, Grider and the 

woman stood up and walked toward the back of the home. 

[5] Deputy Johnson then tested the door handle, discovered that it was unlocked, 

and turned to relay that information to Corporal Williams. When he turned 

back around, Grider had returned. However, Grider did not answer the door. 

He started to step backwards, so Deputy Johnson knocked on the door and 

announced his presence again, this time “a lot more forcefully.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 

234). When Grider did not respond, the officers entered the home and yelled at 

him to show his hands. Grider stepped backwards and refused to comply. 

Instead, he “blad[ed]” his body so that his head was facing towards the officers 

and his body was turned away from them. (Tr. Vol. 3 at 74). At that point, 

Deputy Johnson heard a “distinct pop” that sounded “like a firecracker” and 

smelled gunpowder. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 244). Corporal Williams saw a muzzle flash 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A05-1706-CR-1484 | March 16, 2018 Page 4 of 11

and heard a “firecracker.” 2 (Tr. Vol. 3 at 75). He also saw Grider holding a 

gun and pointing it in the officers’ direction. There was then a “second pop,” 

and Deputy Johnson saw a muzzle flash from the area of Grider’s waistline. 

(Tr. Vol. 2 at 246). The muzzle flash was pointed in the officers’ direction. 

[6] After the second shot, Deputy Johnson shot Grider, and Grider fell to the floor. 

As Grider was lying on his left side, he continued to “actively fish[] or search[]” 

down by him stomach area with his left hand. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 249). Because 

Deputy Johnson believed that Grider was continuing to look for his gun, he 

then shot him a second time. At that point, Grider started yelling “I’m done. 

I’m done. I’m done,” and the officers were able to take him into custody. (Tr. 

Vol. 2 at 249). As they did so, Grider yelled “kill me,” “shoot me in the head,” 

and “I wish I was trying to go for my .45.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 32, 87). The officers 

found Grider’s gun in the place where he had been lying.

[7] On July 19, 2016, the State charged Grider with two counts of Level 1 felony 

attempted murder. At Grider’s jury trial, Corporal Williams, Deputy Johnson, 

and the other officers who had been at the scene testified to the above facts. 

Corporal Williams was asked whether he was “absolutely positive [Grider] [had 

been] firing at [him] and [Deputy] Johnson,” and Corporal Williams responded 

“Yes.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 94).

 

2 According to Deputy Johnson, a muzzle flash is a “flash of light” that occurs when a firearm is fired and 

the powder burns. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 246).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A05-1706-CR-1484 | March 16, 2018 Page 5 of 11

[8] In addition, Jennifer Davis (“Davis”), a home detention supervisor for the 

Delaware County Community Corrections, also testified at Grider’s trial. She 

said that, a few months prior to the events that occurred in the instant cause, 

Grider had told her that he had previously been in a shootout and that “if the 

pigs [came] for [him], they better be prepared for a shootout because [he] 

[would] kill them.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 168). Davis said that she had asked Grider 

whether he meant “law enforcement” when he said “pig[s],” and Grider had 

responded “yea, like I said, pigs.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 168). 

[9] At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Grider guilty as charged. 

Subsequently, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. At the hearing, the 

State introduced Grider’s pre-sentence investigation report (“PSI”), which

revealed that, at twenty-nine years old, Grider had an extensive criminal 

history. As a juvenile, he had been adjudicated a delinquent for committing 

offenses that would have been considered Class A misdemeanor battery 

resulting in bodily injury and Class D felony failure to return to lawful 

detention if committed by an adult. As an adult, he had been convicted of five

misdemeanor and four felony offenses, including two convictions for Class D 

felony residential entry, one conviction for Class D felony battery resulting in 

bodily injury, and one conviction for Class D felony dealing in hashish. The 

felony battery resulting in bodily injury conviction was based on Grider’s 2011 

attack on a correctional officer while he was incarcerated. 

[10] In addition to these convictions, Grider still had three felony and four 

misdemeanor charges pending in other causes at the time of the sentencing 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A05-1706-CR-1484 | March 16, 2018 Page 6 of 11

hearing. He had escaped from a treatment facility while on release for the 

pending charges, which had resulted in the warrants that had been active for his 

arrest when he committed the instant offenses. 

[11] The PSI also noted that the “cover page” of Grider’s Facebook account had the 

word “Gunemdown” listed in parenthesis.3 (App. Vol. 3 at 99). The PSI 

documented that when asked what was meant by “Gunemdown,” Grider had 

“smiled and chuckled” and said that a friend had given him that nickname. 

(App. Vol. 3 at 99). The probation officer noted that Grider “could not explain 

. . . what he felt was funny about the nickname or why his friend [had given] 

him the nickname.” (App. Vol. 3 at 99). The State asked him about this 

nickname during the sentencing hearing, and Grider said that it was a “joke,” 

but he still could not explain why it was a joke. (Tr. Vol. 5 at 129). He said 

that the nickname came about because he “grew up with rifles and stuff at [his] 

house when [he] was a kid.” (Tr. Vol. 5 at 130).

[12] Grider also testified at the sentencing hearing and told the court that he had 

mental illnesses and substance abuse issues and would have lasting health 

effects from the bullet wounds he had received when Deputy Johnson shot him. 

 

3

Pursuant to Indiana Administrative Rule 9(G)(2)(b) and INDIANA CODE § 35-38-1-13, the PSI must be 

excluded from public access. However, in this case the information contained in the PSI is “essential to the 

resolution” of Grider's claim on appeal. Ind. Admin. Rule 9(G)(7)(a)(ii)(c). Accordingly, we have included 

confidential information in this decision only to the extent necessary to resolve the appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A05-1706-CR-1484 | March 16, 2018 Page 7 of 11

[13] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court sentenced Grider to forty (40) 

years executed for each attempted murder conviction, with the sentences to be 

served consecutively, for an aggregate sentence of eighty (80) years. The trial 

court gave Grider’s mental health and substance abuse issues “no weight” as 

Grider had received “numerous opportunities” to address those issues and had

failed to do so. (Tr. Vol. 5 at 157, 158). The trial court also chose to give 

Grider’s physical injuries “no weight” as he had suffered the injuries by 

“engaging in the crimes for which he was convicted.” (Tr. 158). Grider now 

appeals. 

Decision

[14] Grider raises two arguments on appeal: (1) there was insufficient evidence to 

support his convictions; and (2) his sentence was inappropriate. We will 

address each of these arguments in turn.

1. Sufficiency

[15] First, Grider argues that the convictions for attempted murder should be set 

aside where the evidence was insufficient to establish that he manifested the 

specific intent to kill Corporal Williams and Deputy Johnson. Our standard of 

review for sufficiency of the evidence claims is well-settled. We consider only 

the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the judgment. 

Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not reweigh the 

evidence or judge witness credibility. Id. We will affirm the conviction unless 

no reasonable fact finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A05-1706-CR-1484 | March 16, 2018 Page 8 of 11

reasonable doubt. Id. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may be 

reasonably drawn from it to support the judgment. Id. at 147.

[16] In order to convict Grider of attempted murder, the State had to prove that he 

“engage[d] in conduct that constitute[d] a substantial step toward commission 

of,” I.C. § 35-41-5-1, “knowingly or intentionally kill[ing] another human 

being.” I.C. § 35-42-1-1(1). A conviction for attempted murder requires proof 

of a specific intent to kill. Henley v. State, 881 N.E.2d 639, 652 (Ind. 2008). 

Because intent is a mental state, intent to kill may be inferred from the 

deliberate use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death or serious 

injury. Id. Firing a gun in the direction of an individual is substantial evidence 

from which a jury may infer intent to kill. Id.

[17] Here, Grider argues that his statement to Davis that he intended to have a 

shootout with any police that came after him was not sufficient to prove his 

intent to murder Corporal Williams and Deputy Johnson. However, we need 

not consider Grider’s statement to Davis. At Grider’s trial, Corporal Williams 

was asked whether he was “absolutely positive [Grider] [had been] firing at 

[him] and [Deputy] Johnson,” and Corporal Williams responded “Yes.” (Tr. 

Vol. 3 at 94). Further, although Deputy Johnson did not see Grider’s first shot, 

he saw Grider holding a gun and pointing it in the officers’ direction during the 

second shot. As stated above, firing a gun in the direction of an individual is 

substantial evidence from which a jury may infer intent to kill. See Henley, 881 

N.E.2d at 652. Accordingly, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence of 

Grider’s intent to support his convictions for attempted murder. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A05-1706-CR-1484 | March 16, 2018 Page 9 of 11

2. Sentencing

[18] Next, Grider argues that his sentence was inappropriate. Under Indiana 

Appellate Rule 7(B), we may revise a sentence if it is inappropriate in light of 

the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. The defendant has 

the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 

848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). The principal role of a Rule 7(B) review is 

“to attempt to leaven the outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial 

courts and those charged with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not 

to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 

N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately 

turns on “the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage 

done to others, and a myriad of other factors that come to light in a given case.” 

Id. at 1224.

[19] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, we acknowledge that 

the advisory sentence “is the starting point the Legislature has selected as an 

appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1081. 

A Level 1 felony has a sentencing range of twenty (20) to forty (40) years with 

an advisory sentence of thirty (30) years. As Grider received consecutive fortyyear sentences, his aggregate sentence was the maximum he could receive. He 

argues that such a sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of his 

offenses and his character. We disagree.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A05-1706-CR-1484 | March 16, 2018 Page 10 of 11

[20] With respect to the nature of Grider’s offenses, we note that Grider was a 

“fugitive” when he committed the offenses as he had escaped from a treatment 

facility after he had been granted release in three separate criminal causes so 

that he could seek treatment. (Tr. Vol. 5 at 138). As a result of his escape, 

there were three active warrants for his arrest. In order to avoid being arrested, 

Grider shot at two uniformed police officers acting in the course of their duties. 

Then, even after Deputy Johnson shot Grider, Grider continued to search on 

the floor for his gun. 

[21] Turning to Grider’s character, we note that his attempted murder convictions 

were not the only evidence of his contempt for law enforcement. In his 

conversation with his home detention supervisor, he called police officers 

“pigs” and said he would get in a “shootout with,” and kill, any “pigs” who 

came for him. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 168). He was also convicted in 2011 of Class D 

felony battery resulting in bodily injury for attacking a correctional officer while 

he was incarcerated. These actions demonstrate, as the trial court 

characterized, Grider’s “aggressive, hostile, and violent disdain for law 

enforcement officers and our criminal justice system.” (Tr. Vol. 5 at 141). 

[22] Grider also has a significant criminal history that includes four felony 

convictions and three pending felony charges. He has been given opportunities 

to rehabilitate but has failed to take advantage of those opportunities. 

Specifically, he was given release in three pending cases so that he could receive 

treatment, but he absconded from the treatment facility after four days and did 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A05-1706-CR-1484 | March 16, 2018 Page 11 of 11

not return to custody. Similarly, prior attempts at jail, electronic home 

detention, and supervised probation have not rehabilitated Grider. 

[23] In light of the above evidence regarding the nature of Grider’s offenses and his 

character, we do not find his sentence inappropriate.

[24] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Bailey, J., concur.